Warning
The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file:
A non-publication and non-broadcast order in this proceeding has been issued under subsection 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code. This subsection and subsection 486.6(1) of the Criminal Code, which is concerned with the consequence of failure to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(1), read as follows:
486.4 Order restricting publication — sexual offences. — (1) Subject to subsection (2), the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of
(a) any of the following offences:
(i) an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155, 160, 162, 162.1, 163.1, 170, 171, 171.1, 172, 172.1, 172.2, 173, 213, 271, 272, 273, 279.01, 279.011, 279.02, 279.03, 280, 281, 286.1, 286.2, 286.3, 346 or 347, or
(ii) any offence under this Act, as it read from time to time before the day on which this subparagraph comes into force, if the conduct alleged would be an offence referred to in subparagraph (i) if it occurred on or after that day; or
(b) two or more offences being dealt with in the same proceeding, at least one of which is an offence referred to in paragraph (a).
(2) MANDATORY ORDER ON APPLICATION — In proceedings in respect of the offences referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or (b), the presiding judge or justice shall
(a) at the first reasonable opportunity, inform any witness under the age of eighteen years and the victim of the right to make an application for the order; and
(b) on application made by the victim, the prosecutor or any such witness, make the order.
486.6 OFFENCE — (1) Every person who fails to comply with an order made under any of subsections 486.4(1) to (3) or subsection 486.5(1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Ontario Court of Justice
Date: April 30, 2025
Court File No.: Pembroke 23-37100207
Between:
His Majesty the King
— and —
J.T.
Before Justice J.R. Richardson
Heard on January 6, 8, 13; February 16, 2025
Reasons for Judgment released on April 30, 2025
Counsel:
Richard Morris — counsel for the Crown
Virginia Dolinska — counsel for the accused
Introduction
[1] JT is charged with sexually assaulting GG between March 4, 2012, and June 23, 2012, at Garrison Petawawa. At the time of the alleged offence, both JT and GG were members of the Canadian military working in the kitchen at the Normandy Court Cafeteria on the base.
[2] The Crown elected to proceed by indictment.
[3] This case turns on the assessment of credibility and reliability of various witnesses and the application of R. v. W.(D.), 1991 SCC 26, [1991] 1 SCR 742.
Life in the Kitchen at Garrison Petawawa
[4] The Canadian Military is a complex beast. This case demonstrates that in microcosm.
[5] As one might expect, there are a number of layers of structure and bureaucracy in the operations of a kitchen in the Canadian Forces which are germane to the facts of this case.
The First Layer – Assignment to a Unit
[6] Garrison Petawawa is home to approximately 5000 members of the Canadian Forces, serving in a number of regiments and units including:
- a) 2 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group and Signal Squadron which includes:
i) Headquarters for the Brigade Group and Signal Squadron;
ii) The Second Regiment of the Royal Canadian Horse Artillery;
iii) The Royal Canadian Dragoons;
iv) The First Battalion of the Royal Canadian Regiment;
v) The Third Battalion of the Royal Canadian Regiment;
vi) The Second Combat Engineer Regiment;
vii) The Second Service Battalion. - b) 427 Special Operations Aviation Squadron;
- c) 450 Tactical Helicopter Squadron;
- d) Canadian Special Operations Regiment.
[7] The Units of the Canadian Forces are largely designed to be self-contained and to be self-supporting in battle. Thus, in the case of kitchen personnel, each regiment or squadron has its own cooks. When the regiment or squadron is deployed, their cooks go with it.
[8] When they are all on base, however, the cooks for most regiments and squadrons work at the Normandy Court Kitchen, which essentially serves as a base-wide cafeteria. The operations of the kitchen are managed by a Service Battalion.
[9] There are, however, exceptions. Although every regiment or squadron employs cooks, those cooks do not always have to report to Normandy Court Kitchen. Only if the regiment or squadron has an agreement with the Service Battalion, will the cooks be regularly expected to report to Normandy Court. Regiments or squadrons who do not have agreements are not expected to report, unless they do so by agreement between commanders.
[10] In this case, I heard evidence that there was constant tension between the kitchen and the various units to get enough cooks to staff the kitchen.
[11] This background is important because I heard evidence that GG was later a member of a squadron that did not have a standing agreement with the kitchen to supply cooks.
[12] It is also important because I heard evidence that JT was deployed to various assignments while he worked in the kitchen, which may have limited his opportunity to commit the offence.
The Second Level -- Rank
[13] In the military, as one might expect, rank means everything. While all members of the military have regular conversations with their immediate supervisors (who usually hold a rank directly above them), I heard evidence that it is extremely unusual for lower ranks and civilian employees to speak to members who are of two or more ranks above them unless they are spoken to. The only exception to this rule is if the member two or more ranks above them is their immediate supervisor.
[14] In this case I heard a great deal about the rank structure that was in place in the Normandy Court Kitchen which is comprised of as follows:
- a) At the highest level is a Regimental Sergeant Major (RSM), who deals with serious personnel problems. No one with that rank testified before me as it is evident that what happened to GG was never brought to the attention of the RSM. The RSM is not a member of kitchen staff but is an individual who is assigned to a particular regiment, squadron or the base as a whole.
- b) Below the RSM is a Chief Warrant Officer. No one who was a Chief Warrant Officer at the time that this matter unfolded testified before me. Any significant personnel issues, such as sexual harassment and sexual assault, at the Normandy Court Kitchen would normally have been brought to the attention of the Chief Warrant Officer.
- c) Below the Chief Warrant Officer is the Warrant Officer who is responsible for the day-to-day operations and management of the Normandy Court Kitchen. In this case, I heard evidence from Bonnie Von Dungern and Chris Parker, who were both in charge of the kitchen at times when GG and JT worked there. As the day-to-day manager in the Kitchen, the Warrant Officer is sometimes referred to as the Kitchen Officer.
- d) Below the Warrant Officer are three or four sergeants. They are responsible for various operations in the kitchens and they report to the Warrant Officer. By 2020, JT was a Sergeant in the kitchen and he was responsible for, among other things, scheduling.
- e) Below the Sergeants are Master Corporals. From what I could gather, Master Corporals function as team leads in the day-to-day preparation of meals in the kitchen. They also do some cooking themselves.
- f) Below the Master Corporals are Corporals. Most of the cooks that actually prepare the meals are Corporals. In 2012 to 2013 when the offence is alleged to have been committed, both GG and JT were Corporals and both were cooks.
[15] As I stated, I heard evidence that one did not speak to upper ranks unless one was spoken to. This would be deemed to be disrespectful. Thus, although Corporals, Master Corporals and Sergeants worked together a lot, the Warrant Officer who was managing the kitchen was very isolated. They only routinely communicated with the Sergeants and issues and problems that needed their attention were expected to flow up through that chain of command.
[16] It was not protocol for a person, like GG, who wanted to complain about sexual assault and/or sexual harassment in the workplace, to do so directly to the Warrant Officer in charge of the kitchen.
[17] A live issue in this case is whether this explains the difference in the evidence I heard about meetings between GG and Warrant Officer Parker and GG and Warrant Officer Von Dungern. Another live issue is whether this explains GG’s delay in reporting the incident to the police. I will comment extensively on these issues below.
The Third Layer: Regular Force, Reservist and Civilian Employee
[18] Layered on top of this is yet another structure where there are:
- a) regular force members;
- b) reservists; and
- c) civilian employees.
[19] In this case, JT was a regular force member who had permanent, full-time employment.
[20] GG, on the other hand, was a reservist. While her employment was full-time, it was not permanent until well after the date of the alleged incident. She essentially worked a number of contiguous “Class B” contracts between 2011 and 2017. In 2017, she became a member of the regular force.
[21] She explained that a Class B contract was a contract with a term of between 30 and 180 days in length. She also explained that Class B reservists are normally not entitled to benefits, other than basic medical benefits available at the base medical clinic. Those benefits do not include dental or prescription drugs.
[22] As she put it, reservists are also “their own career managers”, which I took to mean that they do not enjoy the same level of career planning oversight that regular force members do. She said that she was constantly looking at postings for contracts in order to remain employed.
[23] A live issue in this case, which I will discuss in greater detail below, is whether GG’s status as a Class B Reservist also meant that she had to keep silent about the allegations before the Court, out of fear that reporting would have led to reprisals, including whether her contract would be renewed.
[24] Reservists were often looked down upon because they were coming in as “part-time” soldiers who were on contract to work full-time hours. There were gaps in training and practice in the cooking trade. There was a perception that reservists were not as capable or as efficient as regular force members.
[25] Reservists on contract were also under pressure to impress their superiors in order to get additional contracts or become members of the regular force.
[26] One witness I heard from was not a member of the military at all, but a civilian employee. Civilian employees were essentially the wait staff and the dishwashers of the military. Cooking was the exclusive work of the military members, regular force and reservists, who worked in that trade. Serving food, bussing tables, washing dishes and other non-cooking tasks, on the other hand, were performed by civilian employees. These employees were also almost always contract employees.
Cooks are Soldiers First – Physical Fitness and Military Proficiency was Still Important
[27] In this case, it was not uncommon for the military members of the kitchen to start each day with physical fitness exercises, which would consist of ruck marches, activities in the gym, such as basketball, or circuit training which consisted of running, push-ups and sit-ups.
[28] “Ruck marches” are marches where members are expected to don a backpack with a certain weight in it and complete a march through the base. The weight is designed to replicate the “kit” that a soldier would have on her person if she were deployed to the field.
[29] GG recalled that when she worked at Normandy Court, the ruck march usually took the same route through the base. The ruck march involved going up and down sand hills, doing push-ups and things of that nature. These marches usually lasted 45 minutes to an hour. Members would march, then return to their unit where they would shower. Some members went home after ruck march to shower and then returned to the base to take up that day’s assignment.
[30] There were showers at the Normandy Court Kitchen.
[31] Whether the members did ruck marches or some other kind of physical fitness depended on the whim of their shift officer in charge or the Warrant Officer. Some were more keen about it than others.
[32] All members also had to maintain standard military proficiency, including proficiency with weapons, in the event that they were deployed to a theatre of war.
[33] All of this created an environment in the Normandy Court Kitchen that was essentially rigid, highly-structured, well-organized chaos.
Glossary of Some Military Jargon Used in this Case
[34] As one might imagine, everyone in the military uses a great deal of jargon which is mystifying to people outside the military community. Here are some terms that one needs to understand in order to understand the nuances of this case:
- a) “Dagged red”. I do not know the origin of the term or what “dag” stands for, but I do know from having presided and practiced in Renfrew County for over ten years that when someone is “dagged red”, that is military jargon for “not deployable”. When someone is “dagged green”, they are deployable.
- b) “Op Honour”. “Op Honour” refers to “Operation Honour” a program in place in the Canadian military designed to improve the military’s response to sexual misconduct. It was implemented in approximately 2015, in response to the Justice Deschamps’ Report concerning Sexual Misconduct and Sexual Harassment in the Canadian Armed Forces. Op Honour essentially required all allegations of sexual assault and sexual harassment to be reported up the chain of command. Op Honour was not in place when the alleged incident occurred between GG and JT in 2012.
- c) “SHARP Training”. “SHARP” is referred to in former Justice Deschamps’ Report concerning Sexual Misconduct and Sexual Harassment in the Canadian Armed Forces from March 2015. “SHARP” is an acronym for “Standard for Harassment and Racism Prevention Program”. It was introduced in 1998. Justice Deschamps noted in her report that “…after a few years, the program lost its lustre”. SHARP was theoretically in place when the alleged incident occurred between GG and JT in 2012.
- d) “PCC Chart.” This is a chart in the kitchen which set out the various tasks that the members of the kitchen staff were designated to do on a particular day.
Cast of Characters in this Case
[35] JT, the accused, is a regular force member of the Canadian Forces. When the incident in question took place, he held the rank of Corporal. Later, in 2020, when he had other interaction with GG, he held the rank of Sergeant.
[36] GG, the complainant, was a reservist member of the Canadian Forces between 2009 and 2017. In 2017, she became a regular force member. She initially joined as a reservist in North Bay, Ontario. She transferred to Garrison Petawawa in November 2011. When the incident took place, she held the rank of Corporal. In 2020, she was still either a Corporal or a Master Corporal. In other words, she was ranked below JT.
[37] Carol Cliché (“Cliché”) was a civilian employee of the Department of National Defence assigned to work in the Normandy Court Kitchen. Her classification was Kitchen Helper. She is now retired.
[38] Chief Warrant Officer Chris Parker (“Parker”) was the kitchen manager at the Normandy Court Kitchen in 2012. He then held the rank of Warrant Officer. He is now retired.
[39] Warrant Officer Bonnie Von Dungern (“Von Dungern”) was the kitchen manager at the Normandy Court Kitchen between 2018 and 2022. She is now retired.
[40] Master Warrant Officer Steven Ellis (“Ellis”) is a member of the Canadian military. At the time of the incident, he was GG’s boyfriend. He was also a cook posted to the Royal Canadian Dragoons. He worked at the Normandy Court Kitchen in various capacities. When the incident took place, he held the rank of Sergeant. He was promoted to Warrant Officer shortly after that.
[41] Sergeant Joely Duquette (“Duquette”) was GG’s superior when GG was assigned to 450 Squadron at Garrison Petawawa. I heard evidence that suggested that she and GG were friends. I also heard evidence that she was GG’s immediate supervisor at 450 Squadron. She was not called to give evidence by either party in this case.
[42] Sergeant (First Name Unknown) Daigle (“Daigle”) was a Sergeant in the Normandy Court Kitchen in 2020. She was not called as a witness in this case.
[43] (Unknown Rank) Julie Lai (“Lai”) was a peer of GG’s in 2012. GG testified that Lai went on a ruck march with her the morning of the incident. GG also gave evidence that she told Lai about what happened. Lai was not called as a witness in this case.
[44] Warrant Officer (First Name Unknown) Saunders was a person present in the Normandy Kitchen on a day that GG went to work there in 2020. I do not know what Warrant Officer Saunders’ position was. They were not called as a witness in this case.
Evidence of GG
Examination In-Chief
[45] GG is from Sturgeon Falls, Ontario. She joined the Canadian Military at the age of 17 in 2009 because it seemed like the right thing to do, given that she came from a military family.
[46] She went to Canadore College in North Bay, Ontario to study Culinary Arts but only completed one year because she could not afford to continue. She did some aptitude testing to determine which trade in the military best suited her and she settled on becoming a cook.
[47] After she transferred to Petawawa, she worked with JT. She indicated that they were both the same rank.
[48] She identified JT “in dock” in Court. When asked how she was sure that the man that she identified was JT, she stated, “Because you don’t forget him.”
[49] GG recalled that on the morning in question, the kitchen staff did a ruck march before reporting for her shift as a cook. She recalled that it was a sunny morning. She was dressed fairly lightly in olive drab military attire because it was warm outside. Between eight and twelve members participated.
[50] GG reported at 8:00 am. She then went on physical training, which involved the ruck march, between 8 and 9. She was then required to report at 10:30 for the balance of her shift. The period between 9 and 10:30 would be used to shower.
[51] GG recalled a number of members on the ruck march, including JT. She recalled marching beside Lai. She recalled one member, who was not terribly fit, struggling and vomiting during the march.
[52] After the march, GG showered at the shower facilities in the kitchen. She recalled showering there that day because she remembered she slipped in the shower. She recalled that Lai went home to shower.
[53] After showering, she donned her kitchen uniform.
[54] She returned to her post at about 10:15 am.
[55] When she arrived, she checked the PCC Chart. She was assigned to prepare vegetables on the day in question.
[56] She recalled that JT was there, standing by a steam jacket, which is used to boil pasta or chilli. He told her that he would “eat my sweaty pussy after a ruck march”.
[57] GG indicated that no one else was in the vicinity when the comment was made. She could not recall whether she had any interaction with JT up to the point that the comment was made. She knew that the comment was directed to her because he made eye contact with her and called her by her first name.
[58] GG stated that she was “stunned” by the comment and was not sure how to take it. She found it very distressing.
[59] She stated that when the comment was made, the kitchen would be preparing lunch for the early shift of military members. The lunch would have to be on the line by 10:30 to 11.
[60] She denied stating anything to him in response. After checking the PCC Chart, she went to the fridge and grabbed some food. Before entering the fridge, she had further interaction with JT. She stated that he bent her over the counter and pretended to penetrate her from behind. She stated that the right cheek of her face was on the counter. She stated that he grabbed the back of her head by the bun of her hair and forced her head down to the counter. She stated that her chest was on the counter and her hips were on the edge or lip of the counter.
[61] Although he was thrusting his hips behind her, he did not make physical contact with her. She stated that she could feel the thrusting from his hand on her hair and she could also see his hips moving. She clarified that the only physical contact was his hand on the back of her head.
[62] She estimated that the thrusting lasted about ten seconds. She was not wearing a watch. She stated that “it felt like forever”. She could not recall how many times he made the thrusting motion.
[63] He did not say anything else and did not make any noises.
[64] It ended when she pushed herself up and got away. She grabbed the counter by both hands and pushed herself up.
[65] Once she got away from him, GG went outside and “lost my shit”. She explained that she went out there and cried and had two or three cigarettes. A Civilian Employee of the kitchen, Carol Cliché, was there.
[66] She told Cliché what happened. She reported that Cliché took her to the office to speak to Parker. She stated that Parker made it clear to her that if she was to pursue the matter further her career would be over. GG stated that she told Parker about the “sweaty pussy” comment and the pushing and thrusting.
[67] When asked how she took Parker’s comments, she stated that she took them to mean that, “If you complain about sexual assault you are not to be taken seriously and they will end your career.” When asked who “they” are, GG stated, “the old boys club”.
[68] After meeting with Parker, GG finished her shift. She had no idea what JT did.
[69] GG did not take any further steps to complain until 2020.
[70] She did not recall ever having to work with JT again between the incident and 2020.
[71] In 2020, GG was assigned to 450 Squadron. She recalled that the squadron was on an exercise in Louisiana. Upon returning from that exercise, her squadron sent her to work in the kitchen.
[72] When GG reported for duty at the kitchen, she was told by Von Dungern to report to JT.
[73] GG was “under the impression” that her boss at 450 Squadron (Duquette) had sent Von Dungern “strict guidance” that GG was not to work with JT. GG stated that she later learned that this was not true. She ultimately worked for JT for about four days. By the time 2020 rolled around, JT had been promoted to Sergeant.
[74] GG recalled that she had a meeting in the conference room at the kitchen with Von Dungern, Saunders and Daigle.
[75] After this meeting GG stated that she went home and tried to kill herself. She was admitted to a psychiatric facility for eight days. After that, she went back to work at 450 Squadron. She never saw JT again.
[76] GG stated that after she returned to 450 Squadron, her commanders repeatedly asked her to go work at the kitchen. She told them that there was a conflict of interest and they told her that there was no proof with respect to her allegations. At that point, GG decided that the military was not protecting her. She reasoned that the only way for her to protect herself was to report what happened. She went to the Military Police and reported the incident.
[77] She resigned her position in the military on April 15, 2022.
[78] GG stated that 450 Squadron was one of the units that did not have an agreement to staff the kitchen. Although she was technically employed as a cook, she did not do any cooking. She took a number of courses, inventoried rations and did computer work. She stated that, in her experience, this is not unusual when cooks are with their units.
Cross-Examination
1. Inconsistency Re the Timing of the Incident
[79] GG agreed that she sustained an injury to her knee which involved a torn meniscus. She stated that her first surgery was sometime in 2011. She had a second surgery in 2012.
[80] Although GG admitted to experiencing physical limitations, she denied that her physical training in the military was modified to accommodate those limitations. She stated that she continued to take part in drill, work as normally and take part in ruck marches. Even though she was advised against prolonged standing, she continued to work as a cook. “Yes, but we’re cooks”, she said. “We stand.”
[81] Defence counsel asked GG to confirm that the incident happened in the summer of 2012. GG disagreed, stating that it happened in April or May 2012.
[82] Defence counsel then confronted GG about what she said in her police statements about when the incident took place:
- a) She acknowledged that in her May 21, 2021 statement, she told police that the incident took place in July 2013. She said that this was the best of her recollection then.
- b) She acknowledged that in her May 31, 2021 statement, the incident took place in the summer of 2012. She stated that “summer” was accurate.
- c) She also acknowledged that in her July 2022 statement, she stated that the incident took place in the summer of 2012 and she tied the timing to her knee injury.
[83] Later in cross-examination, GG stated that she was trying to be honest and accurate when she said it happened in the summer. She said that she was scared. She also indicated that in her view her account has not changed.
[84] As I will discuss below, I find that the incident occurred in 2012 before JT went on paternity leave. During this time, JT was working in the kitchen at the same time as GG. It was also before Parker went on his French course.
2. Inconsistency Regarding Conversation with JT before “Sweaty Pussy” Remark
[85] Defence counsel cross-examined GG about whether there was any other discussion that morning, but before he made the comment about wanting to “eat her sweaty pussy”. GG said there was not.
[86] Defence counsel then confronted GG with her May 21, 2021 statement in which she said that they exchanged a “Good morning” and had a “normal conversation” before JT said those words. GG stated that she did not see this as a contradiction. She admitted, however, that she did not give evidence in-chief about any conversation with JT that morning before the “sweaty pussy” remark.
[87] I find that this is not an inconsistency. GG testified that the incident took place in short succession to her arrival in the kitchen, her checking the PCC chart and the “sweaty pussy” remark. When she gave her evidence she said it took place “bang, bang, bang.”
[88] Nothing turns on this.
3. Was GG’s Head Shaved When the Incident Took Place or Did She Have Her Hair in a Bun?
[89] GG gave evidence in-chief that when the assault took place, JT grabbed her head by her hair, which was in a bun. GG acknowledged that when she gave her statement on May 31, 2021, she told police that she had a shaved head.
[90] In an excerpt of her May 21, 2021 statement that defence counsel put to GG later (discussed below), GG did tell police that her hair was in a bun and when the assault took place, JT grabbed her hair by the bun and put her down on the counter.
[91] As I will discuss below, this is a significant inconsistency.
4. Did the Incident Last a Few Seconds or Five Minutes?
[92] In-chief GG stated that the incident lasted about ten seconds.
[93] She acknowledged that in her May 21, 2021 statement, she told police the incident lasted about five minutes.
[94] This is not a material inconsistency. Witnesses often misjudge the amount of time that an incident takes. This is particularly so where the incident is traumatic to the witness.
[95] Nothing turns on this.
5. Did She Feel Him Thrusting?
[96] In-chief, GG stated that she could feel JT thrusting from behind through his hand on her hair.
[97] In her May 21, 2021 statement, however, she stated that she did not feel any thrusting but her head was down and she could see what he was doing.
[98] When this was put to her by defence counsel, GG agreed that she never actually felt any thrusting. She stated that when this took place, her cheek was on the counter and she was facing to the side so she could see the thrusting.
[99] She agreed that she never felt his hips on her bum. She agreed that she only felt his hand on the back of her neck.
[100] I find that nothing turns on this. If anything GG’s clarification that JT’s touching of her was limited to her hair/head and there was no touching of her behind adds to her credibility. She could have easily made more of the incident than she did.
6. Did she push herself up or did the incident just stop?
[101] In-chief, GG stated that she pushed herself up from the counter after JT pushed her down by the hair, which was in a bun.
[102] GG acknowledged that in her May 21, 2021 statement, GG told police that after he pushed her down by her hair (which was in a bun), “It just stopped and he went about his merry way”.
[103] I find that nothing turns on this. This is a peripheral detail.
7. Whether the Incident Would Have Been Noticed by Anyone Else
[104] A lot of time was spent in this case clarifying the layout of the kitchen. Photographs of the kitchen were also filed in evidence.
[105] GG stated that at the time this incident took place, there would have been between eight and twelve people on shift. It is also clear that like GG, the other members of her shift would have been returning to work from their showers after the ruck march.
[106] Defence counsel suggested to GG that a person working in the kitchen would have noticed what JT was doing. GG stated that it depended where the person was located. She stated that there were a lot of blind spots in the kitchen.
[107] She added that a lot of people from the first shift would have been gone for lunch.
[108] I find that nothing turns on this. People commit horrible offences openly all the time. I find that there were opportunities for JT to commit the offence when he and GG were working in the kitchen alone. I accept GG’s evidence that she had just returned from ruck march, that the incident took place before the official start time of her shift. Others had either gone home to shower or were showering in the kitchen. The early shift would have been on their lunch.
8. Whether GG Engaged in Sexual Innuendo with JT regarding Ellis
[109] GG denied joking in a sexual manner with JT about Ellis sometime in 2012.
[110] I will discuss this in greater detail below. I am satisfied that raising this is nothing but an attempt on the part of JT to make GG look bad in the eyes of the Court and has nothing to do with the allegations.
9. GG’s Conversation with Cliché After the incident and the Report of the Incident to Parker
[111] GG agreed that she told Cliché about JT’s “sweaty pussy” remark and that JT assaulted her by bending her over the counter. She did not remember whether she told Cliché that JT wanted to sleep with her.
[112] GG stated that Cliché took her to Parker’s office. GG stated that Cliché was with Parker alone for a few minutes.
[113] After Cliché met with Parker, GG met with him by herself. She told Parker what happened, including JT’s inappropriate remarks and the assault at the counter. She stated that Parker told her that if she “officially” told him what happened she would lose her career.
[114] GG acknowledged that when she gave her statement to the police on July 21, 2022, she “believed” that Cliché was still in the room during her conversation with Parker and that Cliché “was like a witness now to all of this.” She acknowledged this contradiction and stated that to the best of her recollection Cliché was there.
[115] As I will discuss below, the issue of Cliché’s involvement in GG’s meeting with Parker and whether the meeting ever took place is a conflict in the evidence that cannot be resolved.
10. GG’s Conversation with Ellis
[116] GG stated that at the time of the incident Ellis was her boyfriend. He was also working in the kitchen. She told him about the incident.
[117] She denied having any knowledge of whether Parker and Ellis had a good relationship.
[118] Defence counsel then confronted GG with her July 21, 2022 police statement where she told police that Parker and Ellis did not have a good relationship due to something that happened when they were deployed to Iraq. When this was put to her, GG acknowledged that this was true.
[119] Later in cross-examination, defence counsel suggested to GG that she only told Ellis about the comment and she did not tell Ellis about the alleged sexual assault. GG denied this and reiterated that she and Ellis were in a relationship. When asked why Ellis might say something different, GG stated that Ellis was very “career driven”. She stated that the military culture is that it is better to keep quiet.
[120] GG denied that Ellis introduced her to JT in 2010 or 2011.
[121] As I will discuss below, Ellis testified but I have significant difficulties accepting his evidence with respect to what, if anything, he and GG discussed in their residence. This is because Ellis had absolutely no memory of the discussion until the military police told him the exact nature of the allegations.
11. Whether the “Sweaty Pussy Comment” Took Place at the Same Time as the alleged Assault or After it
[122] GG again stated in cross-examination that she was standing at a pillar checking the PCC chart when JT made the “sweaty pussy” comment. She also again stated that when the sexual assault occurred, she was no longer at the chart but at the counter. She estimated that about twenty seconds transpired between the comment and the sexual assault.
[123] GG acknowledged that in her May 31, 2021 statement, she essentially told the police that the sexual assault happened right after the comment.
[124] See my earlier comments with respect to the issue of whether there was conversation before the sweaty pussy remark.
[125] This is a peripheral detail.
12. Whether JT made the “sweaty pussy” comment when he was at the steam jacket or at the island
[126] GG’s evidence in both chief and cross to the effect that the “sweaty pussy” comment was made in the kitchen when she was standing at the pillar reading the chart and JT was standing near a steam jacket.
[127] In cross-examination, defence counsel confronted her with her May 21, 2021 statement, in which she told police that he made the comment after he came down the hallway and leaned on the table talking to her. She agreed that she made that statement.
[128] I find that nothing turns on this inconsistency.
[129] It is a peripheral detail.
13. Whether GG Avoided JT Or Took Other Steps to Protect Herself after the Sexual Assault
[130] GG stated that she had no memory of avoiding JT after the alleged sexual assault or taking any steps to protect herself.
[131] Defence counsel confronted her with her May 21, 2021 statement where she told the police that she avoided JT for the rest of her shift and she asked a girlfriend to stay close.
[132] The law is well established that it is mythological reasoning to expect victims of serious offences to behave in particular ways. That includes the so-called “common sense” inference that a person will avoid the person who has sexually abused her: see R. v. ARJD, 2018 SCC 6, aff’g 2017 ABCA 237; R. v. DR, 2022 SCC 50 aff’g 2022 NLCA 2; R. v. Steele, 2021 ONCA 186.
[133] Nothing turns on whether GG remembers avoiding JT and asking a friend to stay close.
14. Whether GG Suffered Reprisals After her Disclosure
[134] GG reiterated that Parker told her in 2012 that if she disclosed what happened, she would lose her contract.
[135] GG stated that in 2020 she lost her career. She stated that she went on a medical release.
[136] I find that this is not an inconsistency. As I have stated, however, there are serious issues with respect to the issue of whether the conversation with Parker took place as GG said it did. GG’s evidence on this score is diametrically opposed to the evidence of Parker and Cliché. It is not possible to come to a considered and reasoned conclusion with respect to which account is truthful.
15. Whether GG Has a Pecuniary Interest in the Outcome of the Case.
[137] GG denied that she was being compensated for coming forward. She stated that she was no longer paid by the military but she was still getting benefits from Veteran’s Affairs which included an Income Replacement Benefit.
[138] I find that the Income Replacement Benefit which GG is receiving through Veteran’s Affairs is for GG’s medical issues. I heard no evidence that the Income Replacement Benefit was awarded on the basis that GG had been sexually assaulted or contingent on a finding that GG had been sexually assaulted.
[139] She does not have a pecuniary interest in the outcome of the case.
16. GG and JT 2015 Encounter at CFB Kingston
[140] GG agreed that she ran into JT when she was posted to CFB Kingston in 2015. She agreed that she told JT that she could not stay at the Normandy Court Unit because her therapist would not allow it. She disagreed that she asked JT to help her stay at the unit. She stated that she had no desire to stay at the unit.
[141] I will discuss this in greater detail below.
17. GG’s Report of the Incident in 2020
[142] GG agreed that in February 2020, she made a report to her superior asking that she not be assigned to work with JT because of the alleged sexual assault. When asked who she made the report to, she stated, “Probably Sergeant Duquette.” She agreed that she was not certain as to whether she reported to Duquette because she was on an exercise in Louisiana and she was also hospitalized.
[143] GG agreed that she worked with JT for about three days before she made the report to Von Dungern. She agreed that she told Von Dungern that JT sexually assaulted her, but she did not go into details. She agreed that she made a report to Duquette when she returned to Petawawa in 2019. She also told Duquette again in 2020 when Duquette directed her to report to the Normandy Court Kitchen to work. GG stated that when she reported to Von Dungern, she told Von Dungern about her prior reports to Duquette. She stated that Von Dungern told her that that Duquette did not disclose her previous reports.
[144] GG denied that the “only” thing (defence counsel’s parlance) that she told Von Dungern about was “sexual harassment, not sexual assault”.
[145] GG stated that when she was told to report to the Normandy Court Kitchen, she was directed to report to Daigle. Daigle told GG to report to work for JT. She stated that she worked for JT for about two days before she had the conversation with Von Dungern, which took place in the conference room.
[146] As I will discuss in greater detail below, there is a significant difference between the evidence of GG and the evidence of Von Dungern, which is impossible to reconcile.
[147] Based on the evidence of JT, Von Dungern and GG, however, I find that although GG may have been directed to report to Daigle, there was interaction between her and JT. At that time, JT was responsible for scheduling and when GG did not attend for work he was trying to reach her to find out where she was.
[148] I note that neither party called GG’s immediate supervisor, Duquette, with respect to what she relayed to Von Dungern about whether GG had difficulty working in Normandy Court.
[149] Neither party called Daigle.
18. GG’s Back Injury
[150] GG agreed that when she was working with JT in 2020, she told him that she had a back injury. She denied telling him how she sustained the injury. She agreed that she told JT that the chain of command thinks that she is faking her back pain.
[151] Nothing turns on this. I have discussed below how this may have affected JT’s view of the legitimacy of GG’s injuries and ability to work in the kitchen in 2020, eight years after the incident occurred.
19. Whether GG met JT’s Wife and Children
[152] GG stated that she met JT’s wife and children at the Petawawa Fair. She was not sure when they met. She said they talked about “random things” such as the petting zoo and the fair. GG stated that it was the first time that she met JT’s wife.
[153] GG identified a person in the courtroom as JT’s wife. It is common ground that the person in the courtroom that GG pointed out was not JT’s wife.
[154] Nothing turns on this. This is a peripheral detail.
20. The Number of Times that GG Worked With JT
[155] GG agreed with defence counsel that her evidence in Court in relation to the number of times that she worked with JT was the day the incident took place and in 2020.
[156] Defence counsel then put to GG that she told the police in her May 21, 2021 statement that over the course of four years there were “repeated comments and ass grabbing and slapping” and “it was repeated”.
[157] I do not understand why defence counsel pursued this line of questioning. If anything it introduces the spectre of bad character evidence against JT, for the purpose of establishing an inconsistency in GG’s evidence.
[158] I find that it does not assist me one way or another.
Re-Examination
[159] Crown counsel put GG’s July 21, 2022 statement to her where she discussed the timing of the events in 2012. She agreed with what she stated in that statement – that is that the “sweaty pussy” comment was made in the kitchen right after ruck march. Then the sexual assault which included the bending over the counter. In the statement, GG said, “It was like boom, boom, boom.”
[160] Crown counsel asked GG who the “girlfriend” was that she asked to stay nearby. GG testified it was Lai.
[161] Crown counsel asked GG when she last saw Duquette. GG stated that she last saw her in February 2023. She added that she believed that Duquette relocated to the Niagara Region.
My Questions
[162] I asked GG about her first language as I noticed that in the course of her evidence that she spoke with an accent and occasionally had difficulty finding words. She told me that her first language is French and that she learned to speak English when she was three or four years old. She stated that she is considered bilingual in the military. She stated that she speaks French at home and that her son goes to French school.
Evidence of Bonnie Von Dungern
In-Chief
[163] Von Dungern testified that she is now retired and has no ongoing involvement with the Canadian Forces.
[164] She came to Garrison Petawawa in 2018 as the Kitchen Officer. She held that post until 2022 when she retired. She has since moved to Nova Scotia and she testified before me by way of zoom.
[165] She stated that her move to Kitchen Officer at Petawawa in 2018 was part of her promotion to Warrant Officer. Prior to that she was a Sergeant in the cook school, which is located at CFB Borden.
[166] She had worked in Petawawa before, however. She was there from approximately April 2009 to June 2015. For the most part, during that period, she worked in the kitchen as a cook.
[167] She stated that she knew GG, but not on a personal level. She stated that she worked with GG in the kitchen and would see her around. She stated that the cook trade is a small trade in the military and one gets to know people. Von Dungern did not recall actually working side by side with GG. She stated that if she did, she would have only worked with her for a matter of days or weeks.
[168] Von Dungern recalled having one more direct interaction with GG once she became Kitchen Officer. To her recollection this interaction occurred in early 2020 or late 2019. The interaction took place in a big office with windows that look outside.
[169] Von Dungern stated that the interaction occurred because GG was supposed to come work in the kitchen. Von Dungern noted that GG was assigned to 450 Squadron. “Someone” told her that GG did not want to come to the kitchen. She recalled telling one of the Sergeants (she could not remember who) to contact GG’s manager “to see what the deal is”.
[170] Von Dungern then recalled that one day “a guy” showed up in her office. She did not know who “the guy” was. She recalled that GG was with him. The guy told her that he was GG’s husband. He demanded that she take GG off the kitchen schedule because GG had an issue with one of the Sergeants. Von Dungern told the man that she would have to talk to her manager about that. She stated that she was “pissed off” at being confronted by the man and she told him to “get out”. She noted that GG wanted to have a conversation and she told them to come back the next day.
[171] After this conversation, Von Dungern called her RSM. She told the RSM what happened about “the guy”.
[172] She then met again with GG and her husband. GG told her that she did not want to work in the kitchen because she had an issue with JT. Von Dungern testified that she asked GG what the problem was. GG told her that she did not want to work with him. Von Dungern told GG that she needed to “come up with something” and she told GG to talk to her manager. “She didn’t give me a lot of details as to why she didn’t want to work with him”, Von Dungern testified.
[173] She had no further involvement with the issue until she received her subpoena, which listed the charges before the Court. Von Dungern stated that if GG had told her about an assault, she would have taken it up for her. She stated that she took GG’s conflict with JT as a “personality issue” and she thought that GG simply “didn’t like him”.
[174] Von Dungern recalled that when she spoke with GG and her husband, GG was “visibly upset” but she did not want to discuss a lot of details. She did not think it was something serious enough to take up the chain of command.
[175] Von Dungern repeated that she was upset that GG’s husband, who was also a member of the military, came into her office the way he did. “You don’t just waltz into someone’s office”, she said. “That’s not how you do it.”
[176] Von Dungern recalled knowing that there was “an issue” with GG. She stated that the Sergeants in the kitchen would generally try to sort things out for themselves, but they would also often complain that the units were not sending enough cooks. She recalled hearing little bits of information that GG did not want to come to the kitchen. She recalled that she would see GG’s name on the schedule to work in the kitchen, and then all of a sudden, it would be off. She would ask, “What happened to this person” and be told that GG’s manager took her off the schedule.
[177] Von Dungern added that it was hard to get people to work in the kitchen. She stated that it was “hard work” and it involved nights and weekends. For that reason, it was not uncommon for them to have a hard time getting cooks to work. For this reason, she did not get the impression that GG’s issue was “anything serious”. She stated that she just needed people to work in the kitchen.
[178] Von Dungern recalled that at the time of her involvement, there were three sergeants in the kitchen, Sergeant Desjardins, JT and Sergeant Duquette. She could not recall who she tasked to deal with the issue of having GG come to work in the kitchen.
[179] She admitted that JT might have been the person she tasked. She stated that he would have been tasked if he was the one who was doing scheduling. She stated that the sergeants’ responsibilities changed from time to time to allow them all an opportunity to do various aspects of assisting with the management of the kitchen. She did not know which sergeant was tasked with doing scheduling when she had her discussions with GG.
[180] She stated that she was not aware “right away” that JT was alleged to be “the problem”.
[181] Von Dungern stated that she told JT about this. She was not sure how long after her discussion with GG and her husband that conversation took place. She stated that the conversation was “completely verbal”. She recalled that he came to her shortly after and he thought that GG had a problem with him.
[182] Von Dungern recalled asking JT what he wanted her to do. He stated, “I want you to know that there may be an issue with me.”
[183] She recalled asking JT why GG had a problem with him. She recalled that JT told her that he thought GG was going to accuse him of harassment. He then stated, “But I was on parental leave when this supposedly happened.” She recalled that the allegations concerned “some kind of sexual harassment”, but stated that JT did not give her any details.
[184] She then said that he came back and gave her a flash drive with some information that she may need. She stated that she never read or looked at the flash drive and it was “wiped out along with everything else” when she retired.
[185] Von Dungern recalled that GG worked in the kitchen for one day. She remembered walking through the kitchen, seeing GG, and saying to herself, “Oh, she is here. Maybe the issue is resolved.” She stated that she did not have a conversation with GG to confirm that was the case.
[186] Von Dungern agreed, however, that GG was not her direct report. “Typically if you are a lower rank, you don’t just waltz up and talk to the Warrant. She probably would not have said anything to me unless I said something to her.”
[187] Von Dungern recalled that she had a lot of interaction with JT.
[188] She stated that her memory has “gotten really bad.”
Cross-Examination
[189] Von Dungern did not recall GG ever mentioning that JT made an inappropriate comment to her.
[190] Von Dungern did not remember if GG ever told her that her issue with JT was a sexual harassment complaint. She recalled receiving that information from JT himself.
[191] When asked if GG ever used the words “sexual assault”, Von Dungern stated, “I would have to say no.” She added that, “As soon as someone says those words, I am going to go up the chain. That is what you do. There is no way she could have said those words to me because I didn’t go up the chain.”
[192] She agreed that if GG had said “those words”, she would have remembered it. She stated, “Absolutely. Especially at that time, it wouldn’t have just gone to my boss, it would have gone all the way up to the base commander and it probably would have gone to Ottawa. You don’t mess around with that stuff.”
[193] She stated that she did not ask JT to write anything down. She might have asked him to send something by email, but she did not remember. “I just remember him saying that he was going to give me something. I don’t remember how I got it.”, she said.
[194] She could not remember whether she asked GG why she was bringing up this issue. She stated that if GG told her, she would have reported it. She added, “You get in trouble if you don’t.”
[195] Von Dungern acknowledged that she might have told JT that GG can’t work with him.
[196] She stated that at the time, JT was one of the Sergeants in the kitchen. She stated that below him would have been a Master Corporal and GG would have worked under the Master Corporal.
[197] She stated that there might have been two meetings at two separate times with GG. She recalled that “at some point”, GG came to her and said, “I don’t want to be here.” Von Dungern stated that she probably told GG that she needed to talk to her manager about it.
[198] She added that there was another time when GG told her that she cannot work with JT. She told defence counsel, “My memory is being jogged as you are talking to me.”
Re-Examination
[199] In re-examination, Von Dungern acknowledged that although there would be another layer of command between GG and JT, (GG was a Corporal, JT was a Sergeant. A Master Corporal would have been between them in rank) JT and GG would be more likely to have regular interaction. She stated that there was no doubt that JT would be in a position of authority over her.
Evidence of Carol Cliché
In-Chief
[200] Cliché testified that she is now retired. She worked at the Normandy Court Kitchen as a Kitchen Helper between 2005 and 2018. She worked full time hours but did not have permanent status.
[201] Cliché indicated that she retired due to medical reasons. She stated that she fell in front of the dish machine at the Kitchen in 2008. She stated that she had decompression surgery on her back and the surgery was not effective. She now has pains down her legs and tremors. Although it has been recommended that she undergo another surgery, she is refusing to do so.
[202] In order to alleviate pain, she is on opiate pain killers and she uses marihuana.
[203] It was clear to me when she testified that Cliché was in pain. She continually readjusted herself in her chair which often resulted in a stifled wince. When she testified, she stated that she had not been able to get the opiates for four days due to supply issues at the pharmacy and was experiencing withdrawal symptoms.
[204] She stated that over time, the use of these substances have hindered her concentration and her speech. She has difficulty focusing and finding words. Her short and medium term memory is affected.
[205] I did not detect any outward sign that the opiates and marihuana that she said she takes had any effect on her evidence, nor did the withdrawal symptoms that she was experiencing seem to meaningfully impact her evidence.
[206] As a result of her injuries she is on a disability which is provided by Sun Life, Canada Pension Plan and the Military.
[207] She is 57 years of age. The pain she is under has obviously taken a toll as I would have said that she was older than her stated age.
[208] She does not think that she will ever work again. She said that her injuries are permanent and are just going to get worse.
[209] In a case that was full of military jargon, levels of military complexity and rank, Cliché was delightfully direct in her evidence.
[210] She stated that she enjoyed her work at the Normandy Court Kitchen. She had a number of friends and co-workers there. She only ever had issues with two people there. She said that overall, she was comfortable and happy.
[211] She knew both JT and GG. She knew that JT was a regular force member and GG was a reservist. She was friendly with GG at work and would talk to her. She did not socialize with GG outside of work.
[212] Cliché stated that the summertime routine usually involved reservist cooks helping at Normandy Court because the base hosts a number of courses. She stated that August is the busiest month. She recalled working with GG in about the summer of 2012.
[213] Cliché recalled having a conversation with GG. She stated that GG was on the breakfast line. She was going through the door to go from the dining area to the back of the kitchen. She stated that GG told her that she was not comfortable with JT. She could not remember “word for word”, GG’s exact words. Cliché recalled that she told GG to tell JT to stop and if that did not work, to go through the chain of command.
[214] When pressed, she stated that she could not remember “word for word” what GG told her. She recalled GG telling her that JT was “trying to get in bed with her. That’s what it came down to.”
[215] She stated that the conversation took no more than five minutes because she “can’t stand around and talk.” “I gotta work”, she said. She recalled that she was serving breakfast. She stated that this was the only time that she ever spoke to GG.
[216] This conversation took place on the breakfast line where you cannot see into the main part of the kitchen.
[217] When asked about GG’s demeanour, she stated that GG was upset. She recognized this by her voice and her body language. She stated that GG was usually “pretty bubbly”. She was not bubbly when they spoke. GG was not smiling.
[218] She stated, “I told her what I was taught to do. If someone comes to you in crisis, this is what you are supposed to tell them. That’s protocol. That’s what you’re trained to do.”
[219] When asked how GG reacted, Cliché said she stated, “Ok.” Cliché added, “I told her there is help there for you if you need it. This is what you are supposed to do.”
[220] She could not recall whether GG gave her any details about what “getting in bed with JT” involved.
[221] She stated that this subject only came up in conversation once.
[222] She did not feel compelled to follow up because it did not concern her. “She was to deal with it on her own. I gave her advice. I told her what protocol was to do.”, she said.
[223] Cliché stated that she did not work much with GG, if at all, after that. She recalled that GG hurt her knee and was on crutches. She recalled seeing GG right after GG bought a new vehicle and GG was on crutches. She was going off shift. She did not talk to GG. “It was time to go home.”, she said.
[224] She stated that there are places in the kitchen where it is impossible to see or hear anything. She was aware of people having sex in a fridge or “punching the shit out of each other” if there was a beef between them. She stated that these were stories she heard about goings on in the kitchen before she started working there.
[225] She recalled telling GG not to go into the boxed lunch room or the fridges. She told her “do not leave yourself vulnerable in those areas.” She stated that this was all part of the same conversation.
Cross-Examination
[226] Cliché agreed with defence counsel’s suggestion that GG never told her about JT’s “sweaty pussy” remark. “No!,” she stated. “I would have remembered that”.
[227] She also agreed that GG never told her that JT bent her over the counter and simulated having sex with her. She stated that if GG had made those kinds of allegations to her, not only would she have remembered it, but she would have reported it.
[228] Cliché recalled Warrant Officer Parker was in charge of the kitchen. She agreed that she did not take GG to see Parker to report JT. She stated that she would remember it if she had.
[229] She also stated that she never had a conversation with GG in the smoking area about JT. She stated that she did not believe that GG smoked.
My Question
[230] Cliché agreed that she is a smoker.
Evidence of Steven Ellis
In-Chief
[231] Master Warrant Officer Ellis testified that he started in the regular force. He then transferred to a reserve unit. He then transferred back to the regular force. He stated that he has 15 more years to work until he retires.
[232] He stated that he was in a relationship with GG between late 2011 and early 2014. They never married. They lived together in Pembroke. At the time of their relationship, she worked as a reserve cook at the Normandy Court Kitchen. He stated that he was senior to her in rank and in the trade. They met at the cook school at CFB Borden. When they met, he was in the reserve. He explained that he did not go back to the regular force until 2012.
[233] He recalled speaking to the police in 2022 about an incident involving GG which occurred at Garrison Petawawa in 2012. He stated that he barely recalled the incident.
[234] He stated that as the interview was unfolded, his memory of events and discussions with GG were triggered.
[235] He stated that GG came home and told him that something happened at work between her and JT. She recalled that GG started the discussion by asking him if he knew JT. He remembered that GG was uncomfortable with the discussion. She told him about an incident that occurred after physical training. He recalled telling her that she was well within her rights to report the incident. He told her that he would support her if she did.
[236] When asked what GG told him, he stated that she said that JT made a comment about how she smelled and he proceeded to push her over a box or a pile of something in the kitchen and tried to “hump” her in the kitchen. She stated that her demeanour was “heated” and “pissed off”. The event that she was telling him about had just happened.
[237] Ellis stated that nothing ever came of the matter because GG wanted to leave it alone.
[238] When asked whether he remembered anything with more specificity, he stated that he remembered GG attributing a remark to JT about what she tasted like after PT [physical training]. “Something along those lines”, he said. He recalled that she told him that the incident happened outside the change rooms at Normandy Court.
[239] When asked whether he encouraged her one way or another as to what she should do, Ellis stated, “With the nature of what she was telling me, I was leaving the ball in her court. In my mind, I wasn’t telling her what to do because she would have to relive it. She’s not in my chain of command. It’s not my place to do something about it.”
[240] He added, “[GG] is a tough girl. If something bothered her, it bothered her for a short while. She didn’t have the mentality to be upset all the time.” When asked what happened, he stated, “We went on. That’s the military life. You get up and do it again.”
[241] When asked if he took any steps to support GG, Ellis stated that she did not ask him to do so. He added, “I may have had a couple of side-bars. When I have official conversations, I tend to remember them more. Not the same with side-bars.”
[242] When asked about the difference between “official conversations” and “side-bars”, Ellis stated that something becomes “official” when it is put in writing. A “side-bar” is a more informal conversation “at the lowest level”. He stated that if the matter is not resolved after a “side-bar”, it would usually get escalated.
[243] He acknowledged that he could not remember having a “side-bar” with anyone about it. He stated that he was “pretty pissed off about it” and if GG had asked him to have a “side-bar”, he would have done so.
[244] He stated that he did not like mixing his personal life and work life. He tries to keep them separate. He stated, “If she needed me to step up and say something, I would. I don’t recall reporting that.”
[245] The Crown asked Ellis if he ever spoke with Von Dungern about GG’s allegations. He did not recall ever doing so. He allowed that at the time, both he and Von Dungern held the rank of Sergeant and they both worked at Normandy Court. He recalled that Parker was in charge of the kitchen. To his recollection Von Dungern was the Sergeant in charge of Production. Production included staffing. If there were conversations about GG and JT, in all likelihood, Von Dungern would have been privy to those conversations. Ellis could not recall whether those conversations took place.
[246] He stated that the sergeants dealt with “day to day fires.” Lower ranks came and went from the Normandy Court Kitchen because they belonged to the units.
Cross-Examination
[247] Ellis agreed that when he initially spoke to the police his memory of what transpired was very vague. He stated that he was not able to recall anything about what GG told him until the police told him that:
- a) That the matter involved JT and GG;
- b) That there was allegation that JT pushed GG over a box and dry humped her.
[248] He repeated that the incident happened outside the change rooms at Normandy Court and that the allegation involved JT pushing GG over a box, not a table. He stated that there was no room for a table near the change rooms at Normandy Court.
[249] Defence counsel confronted Ellis with his statement where he spoke about dirty comments that JT made and said that he cannot put his “thumb on a physical altercation” but he remembers the comment. Ellis explained that he was making it clear to the police that he did not see the altercation and he was not there. He did, however, insist that he remembered discussing the entire matter with GG at nighttime. He also said that he did not have a timeline when this occurred.
[250] Ellis could not remember if he introduced JT to GG in January 2012 when he first relocated to Petawawa. He remembered working with JT in the kitchen. He said that there were very few incidents that they met outside work.
Evidence of JT
In-Chief
[251] JT advised that he currently lives in Wallaceburg, Ontario with his wife and two daughters.
[252] He retired from the Canadian Forces on July 4, 2023. He stated that he was medically released due to “nerve entrapment”.
[253] He identified two individuals in Court as his daughters. They had been in Court throughout the trial. One of the children was obviously under 18.
[254] His elder daughter was in Court when GG was testifying. She was the individual who GG mistakenly identified as JT’s wife.
[255] He stated that he first met GG on January 13, 2011. He stated that he was taking the garbage out when Ellis pulled up. Ellis told JT that he was being posted to Petawawa and he was on his house hunting trip.
[256] Defence Filed Exhibit 2, which was JT’s UER Employment History Record. JT gave the following evidence, based in part on this document:
- a) Between March 5 and 30, 2012, JT was assigned to “Exercise Cold Response”. He stated that this exercise was in Norway. It was international exercise involving three or four other armies. He stated that he returned early because his wife was having a difficult pregnancy with his second child.
- b) He had seven days of leave and then returned.
- c) Between April 1, 2012 and June 2012, he was assigned to Unit Lines of 1 RCR. He stated that he did not work in the Normandy Court Kitchen during this period. He was working at the First Division of the Royal Canadian Regiment. He stated that he was also studying and taking courses in order to be promoted.
- d) He stated that he held the rank of Corporal. In the promotional competition he placed 51st. He was told that the military intended to promote 68 people in his class the following year.
- e) He recalled that he did a battle fitness test in May 2012.
- f) He recalled that he completed a course in Green Procurement and another course in food safety.
- g) He stated that he never did physical training with GG. He did his own physical therapy because he was posted to his unit.
- h) He recalled that before Christmas in 2011, he suffered an injury to his back and had to do physiotherapy. Defence filed Exhibit 3 which is a Physiotherapy record from December 7, 2011 which documents this injury. He stated that the injury still plagues him. He stated that as a result of the injury he was on strict limitations not to do lower body Physical Training. He had difficulty standing and sitting. I note that Exhibit 3 does not indicate an injury to his lower back. Rather it indicates a “the chief complaint” being his ”C spine” and “upper trap pain”. The note states “LBP resolved.” I infer that “C spine” is cervical spine”, “upper trap pain” is pain in the area of his upper trapezius and “LBP” is shorthand for lower back pain.
- i) His daughter was born on June 21. He went on parental leave and was off between 1 July 2012 and March 21, 2013. He returned to Normandy Court Kitchen as a “Shift Cook”, still holding the rank of Corporal, on 22 March 2013.
- j) On 22 July 2013, he was promoted to Master Corporal and posted to CFJSR which I understood to be the Signals Regiment in Kingston.
- k) He stated that he did not have any interactions with GG at all during 2012.
[257] He recalled that near the end of June or early July 2013, he had a conversation with GG. He stated that he was coming on to work the late shift. He had completed his physical training. He recalled that Julie Lai introduced GG to him. He asked GG, “You’re dating Steve [Ellis] right?” He then stated, “You got your hands full with that.”
[258] He recalled that GG stated, “I am dating Steve but he knows what’s good for him. I ride him like a stallion.”
[259] JT stated that this conversation was “enough”. He thought it was inappropriate and he didn’t want to be part of it. He went out to the smoke pit and “went off” about the interaction he had with GG.
[260] He stated that once in the smoking area, he stated, “I see Steve picks winners”. He stated that when he said this he was referring to a previous occasion where Ellis’ previous partner tried to run them down in his vehicle when she and Ellis were separating. He recalled that someone in the smoking area said, “You better be careful with him; he is a Warrant Officer now.” To this JT recalled responding, “I don’t care what he is, I can fill his shoes on the best day.”
[261] Photos of the Normandy Court Kitchen were entered into evidence as Exhibit 4. JT testified that there are differences in the layout of the kitchen. After reviewing his evidence, I am satisfied that those changes are not significant and nothing really turns on them.
[262] JT stated that after physical training about twelve people work in the area per shift. It is not uncommon for both early shift and late shift to be working at the same time, particularly at the time when GG said the incident happened. JT estimated that up to 45 people would be working at that time.
[263] JT stated that he had interaction with GG in 2016. By then, he was working at the Joint Signals Regiment in Kingston. He stated that GG came to work there.
[264] He recognized her and she recognized him. He said that she seemed surprised and happy to see him. They had a conversation. During the conversation GG asked him to help her get into the unit. She complained that she was “dagged red” by her psychologist. She told him that she was looking for the kitchen manager to try to talk to him. He recalled that she said, “Oh my God, I didn’t know you were here”. He recalled that she had a big smile on her face.
[265] JT stated that he also had a couple of conversations with GG in 2020. By this time he was back in the Normandy Court Kitchen at Petawawa. He was the officer in charge of procurement, and he was responsible for doing the shift schedule. He recalled that GG was scheduled to work at the kitchen. He recalled that he saw her when he was going through the kitchen on his way to the ration room. He stated that GG asked him why she was there. He replied, “Because you need to be gainfully employed.”
[266] JT explained that this remark was made because of COVID. He stated that it was hard to get cooks at the kitchen. He recalled that GG told him that it did not make sense for her to be there. He stated that she had a “bad back”, but the medical board did not believe her. He recalled that she asked him for advice and he told her to go to the Ombudsman. At this point, he stated that she said, “If you hear guns blasting, that’s me, because that’s how I roll.” She then asked JT for a smoke and left.
[267] He recalled that the following day GG came up to him and told him that she was looking for Daigle because she had to pick up her child at daycare. He told her to go ahead and leave.
[268] He recalled they had another conversation that day in the smoking area. He was already there and she came out and asked him for a cigarette. He gave it to her and left the area.
[269] He recalled that on the third day, she did not come into work. No one knew where she was. He called her unit and no one answered. He left his office to go use the washroom. When he went to the front of the kitchen, he saw GG sitting with her husband. Someone told him that GG’s husband wanted to speak to Von Dungern.
[270] He recalled going in and asking Von Dungern what was going on. He was told that GG could not work with him because of a comment that he made.
[271] He stated that he then went to the ration room and wrote down every conversation that he had with GG. He gave what he wrote to Von Dungern. He believed that she intended to send it up to the RSM.
[272] He did not hear any more about it until he was called by the Military Police and told to come in.
[273] He completely denied making the “sweaty pussy” remark and sexually assaulting GG by bending her over the counter and pretending to hump her.
[274] He also completely denied introducing GG to his wife at the Petawawa Fair. He recalled seeing GG and her family (along with Duquette and her family) at the fair because he was working. But his wife was not there, nor were his children.
Cross-Examination
1. Member’s Personnel Record Resume (MPRR)
[275] Crown counsel filed two copies of JT’s MPRR as Exhibit 5 and Exhibit 6. This is a more detailed document than the UER, which was filed as Exhibit 2 because it shows JT’s specific assignments in the various units including the kitchen as well as his training history. I note that Exhibit 6 was originally provided by JT to his counsel. Exhibit 5 was in Crown disclosure.
[276] JT stated he did not initially give his counsel the documents in Exhibit 5 (training history) because he did not think that they were relevant.
2. Distinct Memory of First Meeting GG on January 13, 2011
[277] Crown counsel asked JT how he was able to distinctly remember that he first met GG on January 13, 2011. He stated that he remembered this because he was going through some text messages and came across a text message from Ellis. He then backtracked and said that he met her within a five-day period of the text message. The text message was never put in evidence.
3. Medical Notes
[278] Crown counsel showed JT some medical notes or “chits”. These were ultimately filed as Exhibit 7. These documents demonstrate that JT had issues with lower back pain while he was posted to Kingston in 2016 and his physical training regimen was altered because of it. JT agreed that these documents do not reveal anything about his injury in 2012 or 2013. With respect to the lower back pain diagnosis, he stated, “It took a long road but we got there.”
[279] He agreed with the contents of Exhibit 3 (the 2011 medical document).
4. Emails to Warrant Officer Von Dungern
[280] The Crown showed JT the documents which became Exhibit 8. These are emails to Von Dungern dated February 21, 2020. In these emails, JT stated that he was giving “word for word” accounts of his interactions with GG. He described two interactions February 21, 2021, two interactions February 18 and one interaction in May or June of 2016. When asked about what he recorded, JT advised that those emails were “99% accurate” with respect to what he said.
[281] The Crown suggested to him that he would not have used the words, “You seem visibly upset”. He admitted that he might have used other language.
[282] The Crown asked JT how he knew that one of the conversations took place at 15:36, suggesting that was an exact time. He stated that he based the time on the fact that GG told him that she had to pick up her children at daycare. He allowed that he could have been off by five or ten minutes.
[283] The Crown asked JT about the use of the words “gainfully employed”. JT said that those are words that he uses with people who he believes are trying to get out of work. He stated that he has a problem with people sitting at home collecting a paycheque. He noted that these conversations took place during COVID.
[284] The Crown suggested to JT that the emails show that he was clearly lacking in sympathy for GG’s injury and her apparent difficulty in having her injury recognized by the military. JT agreed, stating, “Why would I be?”
[285] With respect to the email that discussed his interaction with GG in 2016, JT stated that he was 100% sure that email accurately set out what was said.
[286] The Crown asked JT why he did not report the “ride him like a stallion” conversation that he discussed having with GG when he gave his evidence in-chief. JT ducked the question, stating that he was taken back by that conversation and “tagged” himself out of it because it was an inappropriate conversation.
5. JT’s Statement to Police
[287] The Crown confronted JT about his statement to police where he told the officers that he only had one conversation with GG in February 2020. He stated that when he gave his statement, that was all he remembered.
[288] The Crown confronted JT about his statement to police where he indicated that he only worked with GG once and might have worked with her for two days in June 2012. He stated that he did not know and did not remember.
[289] The Crown confronted JT about his statement to police where he indicated that his memory was not good and stated that it was spotty due to blackouts. JT stated that he was not having blackouts in 2020 when he wrote the emails to Von Dungern. He stated that he started having blackouts in 2021.
[290] Crown counsel asked JT, “Now your memory is good again?” JT stated that he has spent 1,222 days “replaying this again”. I infer that this a reference to the number of days that have transpired between when JT was charged and when he gave evidence.
[291] The Crown asked JT about a second meeting with the police which took place on August 12, 2022. In that meeting, JT stated that he only worked with GG once in March 2012. JT stated, “That was my stance until I found my UER about a year or two later.”
Evidence of Chris Parker
[292] Parker stated that he was the kitchen manager at the Normandy Court Kitchen in 2012. In August 2012, he left that position to complete a French Course. He stated that he took his annual leave in July 2012. For this reason, he surmised that he was not at Normandy Court at all after the end of June.
[293] He stated that he was the “overall manager” of the day-to-day running of the kitchen. He stated that he was not really a “hands on” manager. He monitored what went on. He said that the Sergeants and Master Corporals were in charge of each section. They would report problems to him.
[294] He knew of GG but did not really know her. She was one of the cooks who worked “on the floor”. He remembered that she was a Corporal in the Reserve.
[295] He also knew of JT. He was also a cook “on the floor”. He could not remember what unit JT belonged to.
[296] When asked if GG ever came to him with a complaint about JT, he stated, “No, not that I can remember.”
[297] He was then asked if she came to him with “any complaint whatsoever.” He stated that if she had complained it would have been through a Sergeant or a Civilian Supervisor. She would not have come to his office directly. He denied ever receiving a complaint from a Sergeant.
[298] Parker stated that he never heard anything about the “sweaty pussy” remark until he was questioned about it by military police. Likewise with respect to GG’s allegation that JT sexually assaulted her over the counter. “I do not remember anything like that.”, he said.
[299] He agreed that if GG had come to him in 2012 to make such a complaint, he would remember it now. When asked why he would remember, he stated that it was above what he normally had to deal with on a day-to-day basis.
[300] He stated that GG’s allegation that he told her that if she proceeded with the allegations her Class B contract would end was “absolutely false completely.”
[301] He stated that if she had come to him to complain about JT in this fashion, he would have contacted her superior. He explained that GG “did not belong” to him, which I took to mean that, like most of the cooks, she was assigned to kitchen from her unit. He stated that he might have done a little investigation in order to give it to her superior but he would not have done much. He stated that a complaint of this nature would have been a unit responsibility.
[302] Once she reported it to her unit, he likely would have been contacted and he would have followed up with whoever he was working for.
Cross-Examination
[303] The Crown filed Exhibit 9, which was an excerpt from Parker’s Member’s Personnel Record Registry which showed that he started the French Course August 7, 2012 and completed it June 28, 2013. He generally agreed with its accuracy, but indicated that once one starts the course, one only has so many days to complete it. He was not able to give a precise date for when he ended the course.
[304] He agreed that his entire career in the military was in the cook trade.
[305] Parker stated that generally there is no interaction between the Warrant Officer and Corporals and Privates outside of morning pleasantries. He agreed that those ranks generally do not speak unless they are spoken to.
[306] He stated that complaints are first handled by the “2 I/C” of the kitchen, or the civilian supervisor. He stated that the 2 I/C would have been a Sergeant. It should have been handled “at the lowest level” and then come up the chain of command to him.
[307] The Crown pointed out to Parker that when he was confronted with the nature of GG’s allegations in-chief he had an outraged look on his face. He stated, “There is no way I would have said that. Ever.”
[308] The Crown asked if it was possible that “someone” might have told GG “Think about what you are doing. You are a Class B reservist. If you become branded as a trouble-maker, you are not likely to get renewed.” Parker said, “It’s possible. That was 12 years ago. The military hadn’t changed. An old dog could have thought that and voiced it.”
[309] He added, “I don’t think that happened. That’s not the way I ran things.” He agreed, however, that 2012 was “a different time.”
[310] He also agreed that if the complaint did come to his attention he was not required to report it. He stated, “OP Honour didn’t exist in 2012.”
[311] He estimated that in 2012, he had approximately 40 military cooks on staff. The vast majority were regular force. Six or seven were reservists. When asked whether reservists were treated the same as regular force members, he stated that they were often looked down upon because they cannot complete tasks at the same level because they are not as practiced at the trade as regular force members.
[312] He added, however, that he had never seen that happen on his watch. He had not heard of anyone expressing those views “in years”. He stated that he was not aware of anyone in his chain of command who he could see as likely to engage in that behaviour.
[313] Parker stated that the general culture of the kitchen ebbed and flowed, depending on who was on shift and how they interacted. He said that sometimes the kitchen functioned well, other times, not so much. He said, ”Sometimes a shift of eight cannot feed 120, but other times a shift of three could feed 600”.
[314] He stated that when he joined the military, there was one “shift punk” and all the others would be good. This changed. “Nowadays, if eight are posted in, two are going to be good.” I had not heard the term “shift punk” before but I infer it means a worker who is not productive.
[315] Personnel that became a serious problem were referred to him. If they became a very serious problem, they would go up to the Chief Warrant Officer above him.
Questions from the Court
[316] I asked Parker whether in his experience, sexual inuendo was commonplace in the kitchen. He stated that when he joined the military that was normal behaviour. He stated that this started to fade after they had “SHARP” training.
[317] I also asked him about the ratio of women to men. He stated that most of the civilians were female. The majority of the cooks were men. He estimated the ratio was 70% men and 30% women.
Evidence of KT
[318] KT is JT’s wife. They have been married since March 12, 2011.
[319] She stated that she has never met GG. She recalled bumping into GG at a sushi restaurant in Petawawa after JT was charged. She stated that she looked GG up on Facebook. She denied meeting GG at the Petawawa Fair. She had not been in Court since the trial began. She said that her children were in the courtroom. The eldest child present was 26.
Defence Submissions
[320] Defence counsel submitted that I should believe JT having regard to the following evidence:
- a) He did not deny interacting with GG, but gave his own account of what those interactions involved.
- b) The evidence supports that he was not working at Normandy Court Kitchen at the time GG said that the incident took place. He was deployed to Norway in March and then held back in his home unit until he went on parental leave in 2012.
- c) He did not do physical training because of a back injury in December 2011.
- d) He admitted to having an interaction with GG in 2013 where she made a sexual reference to her relationship with Ellis.
- e) He admitted that they met in 2016 in Kingston where she discussed her medical issues.
- f) He admitted that they worked together for a couple of days in 2020.
- g) He denied introducing his wife to GG. KT’s evidence confirms the denial.
- h) He denied making inappropriate comments to GG or to sexually assaulting her.
[321] In the alternative, defence counsel submitted that even if I do not believe the accused, his evidence discloses a reasonable doubt.
[322] In the alternative, defence counsel raised the following issues with the evidence of GG and the other evidence before the Court:
- a) The disconnect between the evidence of GG and the evidence of Cliché with respect to what she said, where she said it and whether there was a discussion with Parker.
- b) Parker denied that there was ever any such conversation. If there was, he would have remembered it and he would have reported it to GG’s commander.
- c) The evidence of Ellis does not assist because his initial recollection was very vague. It was only when the police asked him a number of leading questions that he remembered the conversations that he had with GG about what happened that night.
- d) The disconnect between GG’s evidence and the evidence of Von Dungern with respect to what was disclosed to her in her office in 2020.
- e) GG’s statement to the police that JT also slapped her behind and engaged in sexual inuendo with her “for four years” when it is evident that they only worked together a handful of days.
[323] Defence counsel submitted that these inconsistencies are not peripheral and must result in a finding of credibility and reliability against GG.
Crown Submissions
[324] Crown counsel reminded the Court that GG was testifying in 2025 about events which occurred years earlier. He submitted that it is reasonable that there will be some gaps and inconsistencies in her evidence.
[325] Crown counsel pointed out that GG was unshaken with respect to the central allegations before the Court, that JT sexually assaulted her in the kitchen by pushing her over a counter and simulating sexual intercourse with her from behind after making the “sweaty pussy” comment.
[326] He submitted that GG was obviously doing her best to tell the truth and she did not exaggerate.
[327] He submitted that, given the passage of time, it was also reasonable to expect some differences between the evidence of GG and the evidence of the others who testified including Cliché, Von Dungern, Parker and Ellis.
[328] Crown counsel pointed out that the documents provided by JT with respect to his career show that he was trying to come up with an alibi. Those documents were not disclosed to the Crown in advance and were intended to catch the Crown by surprise. He argued that they should have little weight.
[329] Crown counsel argued that JT was essentially trying to reconstruct events to serve his narrative. He maintained that I should not believe JT.
Analysis
The Legal Framework Against Which the Evidence in this Case is Applied
[330] This is what many would describe as a classic “she said, he said” case.
[331] Many, who are ill-informed about how our criminal justice system works, believe that it is the responsibility of a Judge to listen to the evidence and decide who they believe. In their world, if a Judge believes the accused, the accused is not guilty. If, however, the Judge believes the complainant, the accused is guilty.
[332] That is not how it works.
[333] Because the liberty of the accused is always at stake, woven through every stage of the analysis that judges like me conduct every day are safeguards to prevent wrongful conviction.
[334] One of those safeguards is the time-honoured principle that an accused person is always presumed innocent until the state proves his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
[335] A second safeguard is the principle that only when the Crown proves that the accused committed the elements of the offence charged beyond a reasonable doubt, is the presumption of innocence overcome.
[336] A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, far-fetched or frivolous doubt. It is not a doubt based on sympathy for or prejudice against anyone. It is a doubt that is based on reason and common sense. It is a doubt that logically arises from the evidence or the absence of evidence.
[337] To be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, I have to be sure with respect to the accused’s guilt. If I am not sure, I must find the accused not guilty.
[338] If I don’t know who to believe, I must find the accused not guilty. Even if I believe that the accused probably committed the offence, that is not a sufficient basis on which to find the accused guilty. Probable guilt is not proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
[339] The appellate authorities set out the path I must follow in considering whether the Crown has established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt:
- a) First, where the accused testifies and I believe him, I must find him not guilty.
- b) Second, where the accused testifies and even though I do not believe him, I am left with a reasonable doubt by his evidence, I must find him not guilty.
- c) Third, even if I do not believe the accused or am not left in doubt by his evidence, if I am left with a reasonable doubt on the basis of the other evidence I do accept, I must also find the accused not guilty.
Only if, at the end of this exercise, I am satisfied as to the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, must I find him guilty.
[340] I cannot compare the accounts and decide guilt on the basis of which account I like better.
[341] In following this path, I rely on my experience, reason and common sense. I must not, however, engage in stereotypical or mythological reasoning which masquerades as “common sense”.
[342] The evidence that is led before me is assessed by me on the basis of whether it is credible and reliable. Evidence must be both credible and reliable.
[343] A witness who is credible, is not necessarily reliable. A witness may be sincere and credible, but their evidence may also demonstrate that their recollections are not reliable.
[344] One way of determining whether a witness is credible and reliable is to gauge their evidence in Court against what they said on previous occasions, such as when they gave a statement to the police.
[345] Not every inconsistency, however, gives rise to the conclusion that a witness is unreliable. Some inconsistencies are important; others less so. Where an inconsistency involves something material about which an honest witness is unlikely to be mistaken, the inconsistency may demonstrate a carelessness with the truth which is a cause for concern.
[346] The same issue can arise where a witness “fills in the blanks” with respect to what took place. A witness may honestly and sincerely believe that a certain aspect of their evidence is true; analysis on the basis of logic, reason and common sense might suggest however, that what the witness says – as honest, sincere and credible as the witness may seem – is not reliable.
[347] Memories fade. They can also be faulty and frail. Sincere, honest and credible witnesses can simply be wrong or make assumptions about things because of the passage of time.
[348] Defence alleges, among other things, that the complainant has fabricated the allegations.
[349] “Recent fabrication” arises when there is an allegation that a witness has, between the date of the incident complained of and the date that she testifies at trial, lied about the allegations: R. v. Stirling, 2008 SCC 10 at paragraph 5.
[350] The word “recent” in the concept is something of a misnomer. The fabrication need not be particularly “recent”: R. v. Stirling, supra, citing with approval R. v. O’Connor.
[351] In order to rebut an allegation of recent fabrication, the Crown is entitled to present evidence of the prior consistent statements of the witness. This is an exception to the general exclusionary rule with respect to prior consistent statements.
[352] In this case, the Crown attempted to rebut the allegation of recent fabrication by calling evidence that the complainant told Carol Cliché, Steven Ellis, and Bonnie Von Dungern about the allegations. Parker was called by Defence. Cliché, Parker and Von Dungern did not support the complainant’s version of what she told them about the allegations. As I will set out below, there are considerable issues with the reliability of Ellis’ evidence.
Do I believe the accused?
[353] No.
[354] I found that he was completely self serving in his evidence. He presented himself in an overly positive light and he went out of his way to try to make GG and other witnesses look bad.
[355] There were places in his evidence where his memory seemed better than it actually was.
1. Memory Refreshed by Evidence Not Available
[356] For example, he was very specific about the date that he first met GG. This was because he had refreshed his memory by looking at text messages – messages that were not produced to the Crown or shown to other witnesses.
2. Memory of First Meeting with GG and Attitude towards Steven Ellis
[357] He recalled that when he first met GG, he teased her that she was dating Steve, to which she replied, “He (referring to Steve) knows what’s good for him. I ride him like a stallion”. He said these remarks made him uncomfortable and he went to the smoke pit. Once there he said he made a comment about Steven dating “another winner.” He then felt it necessary to tell me that whoever it was in the smoke pit told him that he better watch himself because Ellis had been promoted to Warrant Officer. To this, JT told me he replied, “I don’t care who he is. I can fill his shoes on the best day.”
[358] I believe none of this.
[359] Part of it is hearsay. Whoever JT spoke to about this in the smoke pit was not produced to testify.
[360] JT and Steven Ellis were friends. Ellis contacted him when he was reposted to Petawawa. There is nothing about this exchange to explain how or why his relationship with Ellis changed.
[361] I do not believe that JT was offended by the conversation and disengaged from it. He introduced the subject of GG’s relationship with Ellis by suggesting that she had her “hands full” with Ellis. This was also their first introduction. It is an offhand way to greet someone for the first time. Yet, he would have me believe that he was shocked by the offhand response he said he received. I do not believe it.
[362] There was nothing to be gained by telling me about this interaction with GG, other than to try to suggest to me that she engages in inappropriate sexual banter and innuendo, and that he was grossly offended by it (both of which are designed to diffuse one of the central allegations against him).
[363] There was nothing to be gained by telling me that he believed then that he was a better worker than Ellis other than to make Ellis, who also testified, look bad.
3. JT’s Own Experience with Debilitating Back Pain and His Reaction to GG’s Back Pain
[364] Medical documents were filed that demonstrate that JT had issues with lower back pain and an injury to his cervical spine by the time that he was posted to Kingston. I also heard evidence that he has now retired due to medical release for nerve entrapment.
[365] Given JT’s own experience with these ailments, I was surprised at his attitude toward what he understood to be GG’s medical problems. This came out in his evidence in three ways.
[366] First, during a conversation in Kingston, JT stated that GG told him that she was “dagged red” by her psychologist and asked him for help getting her on the unit there. I find that in telling me about this, JT was again attempting to make GG look bad and himself look good. He suggested to the Court that she had some psychological problems when there was no evidence of this (at least before 2020 when GG told me that she was hospitalized because she tried to commit suicide). He also presented himself as someone who she asked for help, which would be antithetical to her position that she was sexually assaulted by him four years earlier. I do not believe it.
[367] Secondly, JT spoke about being told in 2020 that GG had a bad back but the medical board did not believe her. She apparently asked him for advice and he told her to go to the Ombudsman. Once again, he was presenting GG in a bad light – now as someone who was dishonest and a malingerer, while presenting himself in the best possible light – someone who GG asked for help. I do not believe it.
[368] Thirdly, at about the same time, he stated that she asked him why she was at the kitchen, to which he replied, “Because we all need to be gainfully employed.” He chalked this up to the difficulty it was getting cooks to work in the kitchen during COVID. He added that GG told him that if he heard guns ablazing, it was her because that’s how she rolls.
[369] Yet again, all of this was designed to make GG look bad by suggesting to the Court that GG was unstable, a poor worker, or someone who wanted to collect a paycheque and not work.
[370] When the Crown suggested that he could have been more sensitive to GG, he stated, “Why would I be?”
[371] For someone who himself was experiencing medical problems related to his back, I found all of this evidence self-serving and it demonstrated an animus towards GG, rather than an attempt to truthfully answer her allegations.
4. The Attempt to Establish an Alibi
[372] There was a lot of evidence in this case about the dates of the allegations and whether they could have occurred during the spring or early summer of 2012 as GG alleged. By the time all of the evidence was before the Court, it is clear that despite JT’s various attempts to establish otherwise, there were some days where there would have been an opportunity for him to have committed the offence.
5. The Problems with JT’s Memory
[373] JT told the police in his statement that he had difficulties with his memory. He attempted to explain his inability to remember conversations with GG in Kingston and the specifics of the conversations with GG that he discussed in his emails to Von Dungern by suggesting that he was suffering from memory blackouts when he gave his statement to the police.
[374] In a case such as this, it is not unusual for witnesses to have lapses in memory. JT is no different. I am not surprised that he did not remember some of these details.
[375] There are, however, a couple of things I find difficult about his evidence in this area.
[376] First, I agree with the Crown that his emails to Von Dungern were self-serving. JT admitted in cross-examination that he used language in those emails that was probably not an accurate word-for-word accounting of what was said. In one case, he used the words “visibly upset”. In another case, he referred to an interaction occurring at 15:36, which was overly detailed.
[377] Secondly, rather than simply state that given the passage of time he could not remember some of these details, JT tried to explain his memory lapses by indicating that he was having blackout memory problems when he gave his statement to the police. He said he did not have these memory problems when he wrote the emails to Von Dungern. He stated that he has also recovered from these problems in time to give evidence at trial.
[378] Here I have some difficulty. As I stated, JT was keen to give an excuse for his poor memory, rather than simply acknowledge that he did not remember those occasions when he spoke to the police.
[379] Suggesting that his memory has somehow miraculously recovered is also extremely problematic.
[380] I do not have any difficulty with JT’s evidence that he thought a lot for 1,222 days about what happened. Rumination is not uncommon for persons who are accused of doing terrible things. It is natural. The Court must sift through their evidence to determine whether the product of these ruminations can be believed. We must never lose sight of the fact that these can be the ruminations of an innocent person.
[381] It is also not uncommon for a witness to have a clear recollection of something, only to realise that their recollection is false because they have come across compelling evidence which indicates otherwise. JT was clear that his position did not waiver until he saw the UER which made it clear that his memory was wrong.
[382] That does not necessarily mean that the witness is lying. It does, however, raise the issue of whether the witness’ memory is reliable.
[383] In this case, I do not believe JT’s memory of his interactions with GG are reliable and as I have indicated, there are aspects of his memory difficulties and the explanations for them that are simply too self serving to be believable.
Am I Left in a Reasonable Doubt by the Evidence of the Accused?
[384] No. For the reasons I have set out, I am not left in a reasonable doubt by the evidence of the accused. His evidence is simply too self serving and unreliable.
[385] As I will discuss in greater detail below, the evidence of Von Dungern extinguishes any residual doubt. In 2020, GG and her husband went to see Von Dungern to tell her that GG could not work with JT. Von Dungern testified that JT told her that, “I want you to know that there may be an issue with me.” When she questioned him further, he indicated that he thought GG was going to accuse him of some form of sexual harassment. He added that he was on parental leave when it happened.
[386] In my view, this is a clear reference to the fact that JT knew that he had done something in 2012 and he had already thought of the defence of alibi, a defence, which as I set out above, does not in the final analysis, hold water.
On the Basis of the Evidence I Do Accept, Am I left in a Reasonable Doubt?
1. Assessment of the Evidence of GG
a) Is the evidence with respect to the use of her hair a peripheral inconsistency?
[387] I thought GG was trying her best to give honest answers and relate to the Court what happened to her. Her memory of the basic nature of the sexual assault that she says that the accused committed did not waiver. One morning after a ruck march, when she was looking at a chart of tasks in the kitchen, JT told her that he would like to eat her sweaty pussy after a ruck march. He then pushed her over a table in the kitchen and simulated sexual intercourse from behind. He did not touch her other than to push her over the table.
[388] I believe GG. I believe that what she told the Court probably happened.
[389] But I have a nagging doubt on one aspect of her evidence. In her evidence in-chief, and in at least one of her statements to the police, she stated that JT grabbed her by her hair when he pushed her over. She referred to him using her hair, which was in a bun, as essentially a handle with which to control her head and push her down over the counter (“handle” is my word, not GG’s).
[390] In one statement, however, she told the police that her head was shaved.
[391] I appreciate that GG’s evidence about the nature of the sexually demeaning comment before the alleged sexual assault did not change. I also appreciate that her description of the sexual touching did not change. But the use of her hair is, in my view, a core component of the sexual assault. It is the physical touching that accompanied the simulated humping gestures that the accused made.
[392] I find that GG’s failure to be consistent with respect to this core component is extremely problematic. This is not a peripheral inconsistency.
b) Disconnect between the evidence of GG and Carol Cliché
[393] GG’s evidence with respect to the involvement of Carol Cliché was:
- i) She told Cliché about the sexual assault when they were having a smoke in the smoke pit.
- ii) Cliché went directly to Parker.
- iii) Cliché met alone with Parker first.
- iv) Cliché then took GG in to meet with Parker.
- v) Cliché was present when Parker told GG that if she took her allegations further, it would affect her employment.
[394] Cliché’s evidence with respect to her involvement, however, was different:
- i) GG told her that JT was trying to get into bed with her.
- ii) GG did not tell her that JT sexually assaulted her by pushing her over a table and simulating sexual intercourse from behind. If she had, Cliché would have remembered it and reported it.
- iii) She told GG to make sure that she was safe and warned her about areas of the kitchen where she would be unsafe working alone.
- iv) Their conversation about this took place when GG was working on the breakfast line, not in the smoking area.
- v) Cliché’s involvement was limited to giving GG advice. She told GG to tell JT to stop and if that did not work, she told GG to go up the chain of command.
- vi) Cliché did not speak directly to Parker about it.
- vii) Cliché did not speak with Parker and GG together about it.
- viii) Cliché recalled that GG was upset when she spoke to her about what happened.
- ix) Cliché did not recall GG telling her about the “sweaty pussy” remark. She would have remembered it if she had.
[395] As I indicated when I summarized Cliché’s evidence, I found her delightfully direct. She made no bones about being in extreme pain due to a back injury, being under the influence of narcotics to control that pain and having difficulties with her memory. Despite her acknowledgment of these apparent difficulties, I found her evidence straight-forward.
[396] Cliché no longer works in the kitchen so she has no reason to lie. She did not have a problem with either JT or GG.
[397] I cannot find a reasoned path for accepting or rejecting the evidence of Cliché.
[398] Ultimately, I find that this disconnect with respect to differing accounts between Cliché and GG of what happened immediately after the sexual assault leaves me in doubt.
c) Disconnect between the evidence of GG and Bonnie Von Dungern
[399] I thought that Bonnie Von Dungern also testified in a straight-forward and truthful manner.
[400] Her evidence supported the evidence of Parker and many of the other witnesses in this case with respect to the military hierarchy in general and in the Normandy Court Kitchen to be specific. As I will discuss below, this hierarchy was a barrier to the timely reporting and investigation of complaints of sexual assault and harassment in the military in general, and the Normandy Court Kitchen specifically.
[401] I find that Von Dungern believed that GG was someone who simply did not want to do the hard work in the kitchen. In her estimation, GG was part of a wider problem of getting individual units to provide cooks for the kitchen.
[402] Unfortunately, Von Dungern viewed virtually everything pertaining to GG in that light. She did not see the possibility that a deeper issue existed between GG and JT. She was content to insist that GG go back through her chain of command to identify a problem that would keep her from working in the kitchen.
[403] Rather than view the extraordinary nature of GG’s husband’s visit to her office as a sign that something was radically wrong with GG’s work assignment to Normandy Court, Von Dungern was offended by the breach of military protocol.
[404] She also ignored other signs that there might be something to GG’s complaint including:
- i) JT’s admission that he might be the source of GG’s issue.
- ii) JT’s admission that GG might accuse him of some form of sexual harassment.
- iii) JT’s immediate suggestion to her that he was on maternity leave whenever what GG was complaining about happened.
- iv) JT gave her a flash drive with some information on it which she did not read or send up to the RSM.
- v) GG told her that she did not want to be there.
- vi) GG told her that she cannot work with JT.
- vii) If GG did come back to work in the kitchen, JT would be in a position of authority over her and they would have frequent interaction despite the distance between them in the chain of command.
[405] I also note that on JT’s evidence, he was the Sergeant in charge of scheduling in 2020 around the time GG and her husband went to see Von Dungern. He called GG and her unit to find out where she was and why she was not reporting to the kitchen. He did so at Von Dungern’s request.
[406] Von Dungern acknowledged asking one of the sergeants to follow up, but she could not remember which one. I find it was JT.
d) Disconnect between the Evidence of GG and the evidence of Chris Parker
[407] Parker’s evidence boiled down to the following points:
- i) If GG had a complaint against JT, it is unlikely that she would have complained directly to him. Military protocol required her to complain through the chain of command or through the civilian supervisor.
- ii) GG was the responsibility of her unit. She “did not belong” to him. Only if she reported an incident with JT to her unit command, would he have been contacted.
- iii) If GG made a complaint through the kitchen command, it would have come up through the 2 I/C, who held the rank of Sergeant.
- iv) GG did not come to his office directly. GG did not come to his office with Cliché.
- v) GG did not tell him about the “sweaty pussy” remark.
- vi) GG did not tell him that she was sexually assaulted by JT.
- vii) He did not tell GG that if she complained it would affect her continued employment as a Class B reservist. She would be branded as a trouble-maker and not get renewed. He could not rule out, however, that someone else might have told her that.
[408] GG’s evidence is, of course, diametrically opposed.
[409] Cliché’s evidence supports Parker in the sense that Cliché also denied a meeting with Parker.
[410] I found Parker to be straight-forward and direct. He did not attempt to present himself in the best possible light. He presented as somewhat nostalgic. He lamented the modern military which he saw as having too many “shift punks” and too few workers.
[411] He is now retired so he has no reason to lie or cover things up on the military’s behalf.
[412] He had an immediate visceral reaction to the allegation that he told GG not to report what happened to her. He expressed offence at the suggestion. Despite his nostalgia, it seemed clear that he viewed sexual assault and harassment in the military with disdain.
[413] As with the evidence of Cliché, the disconnect between GG’s evidence and Parker’s evidence with respect to what happened immediately after the alleged sexual assault cannot be reconciled or reasoned through and it leaves me in doubt.
[414] Like the evidence of Bonnie Von Dungern, it is clear from Parker’s evidence that the military hierarchy and structure, in general, and in the Normandy Court Kitchen specifically, made bringing a complaint of sexual assault and harassment forward a difficult and arduous task. More difficult and arduous than it ought to be.
[415] This case amply demonstrates what former Supreme Court of Canada Justice Marie Deschamps found in external review into Sexual Misconduct and Sexual Harassment in the Canadian Armed Forces, where at page ii of the Executive Summary of her report, she noted:
It was readily apparent throughout the consultations that a large percentage of incidents of sexual harassment and sexual assault are not reported. First and foremost, interviewees stated that fear of negative repercussions for career progression, including being removed from the unit, is one of the most important reasons why members do not report such incidents. Victims expressed concern about not being believed, being stigmatized as weak, labeled as a trouble-maker, subjected to retaliation by peers and supervisors, or diagnosed as unfit for work. There is also a strong perception that the complaint process lacks confidentiality. Underlying all of these concerns is a deep mistrust that the chain of command will take such complaints seriously. Members are less likely to be willing to report incidents of sexual harassment and assault in a context in which there is a general perception that it is permissible to objectify women’s bodies, make unwelcome and hurtful jokes about sexual interactions with female members, and cast aspersions on the capabilities of female members. That such conduct is generally ignored, or even condoned, by the chain of command prevents many victims from reporting incidents of inappropriate conduct.
External Review into Sexual Misconduct and Sexual Harassment in the Canadian Armed Forces, Marie Deschamps, C.C.Ad.E External Review Authority, March 27, 2015, page ii.
[416] I find that this this case demonstrates exactly what Justice Deschamps was referring to. While I cannot find that anyone here intentionally and purposely held these views with respect to GG, it remains clear that the rigid rank structure, hierarchy and protocol in place in the military general, and specifically in the Normandy Court Kitchen, resulted in an institutional ignorance of the plight of anyone like GG who could be a victim of sexual harassment and sexual assault.
[417] I find that it is likely that GG was well aware of the general environment in the Canadian military with respect to sexual harassment and sexual assault in the workplace. I find that it is likely that she was well aware that if she went forward with her allegations against JT in 2012, it is unlikely that anything would have come of them and it is highly likely that she would have suffered reprisals, particularly given her position as a reservist on limited term employment.
[418] Her evidence is clear that when it became clear that she could not escape working with or for JT in 2020, she tried to commit suicide.
[419] Her evidence has the ring of truth.
[420] As loud as that bell may clang, likelihood with respect to these things, however, is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
[421] It also is not her evidence. Her evidence is that she complained – evidence which is diametrically opposed to the evidence of Cliché, Von Dungern and Parker.
[422] I cannot come to any firm conclusion with respect to preference of the evidence of GG over the evidence of Cliché, Von Dungern, and Parker.
[423] Judges are not issued crystal balls with their gown and sash. All we can do is consider the evidence that we hear through the lens of reason and common sense.
[424] Often that exercise yields clear findings with respect to credibility and reliability.
[425] In this case, it does not.
e) The Problem of Steven Ellis
[426] The evidence of Steven Ellis is extremely problematic.
[427] He did not remember anything about GG’s allegations until the police led him during the interview. It was clear that when he was called in to speak to the Military Police, he had no idea what he was going to be asked about. The officer told him that he was not the subject of the investigation. The officer then asked him about his relationship with GG. He went into detail about his relationship with GG. The officer then put the following to him:
MP: Okay, so uh, the reason I called you in is because [G] came in and reported an incident of a sexual nature to us and indicated, like you said, that you were dating around the time…..
[428] To this question, Ellis started to give information about another complaint GG may have made while she was posted to an operation in the arctic.
[429] The MP then asked the following question:
MP: Okay. So when she made the, the, uh, report to us, she said, uh, that it happened in a kitchen. Said it happened to her in the kitchen.
[430] Ellis again started talking about an incident that took place when they were posted to the arctic.
[431] The MP then asked the following:
MP: So when she uh was providing information to us, it involved being bent over a table. Does that ring a bell?
[432] To this, Ellis talked about yet another incident involving another member which took place in the arctic. He also spoke about his relationship with GG and his relationship with his former wife.
[433] The MP then asked the following:
MP: Yeah. So the investigation, uh, that we’re dealing with involves another person. Uh, his name is [JT]. Do you know that name?
[434] At this point, Ellis reported knowing that JT made comments to GG after PT, including comments about smelling her. He also reported that JT “creeped” GG out.
[435] The officer attempted a number of times after that to bring Ellis to what, if anything, he remembered about GG complaining about JT. Ellis restricted his comments to verbal sexual inuendo. The officer then asked the following:
MP: Okay, again, uh, I just have to show you, okay, and everything is still recording. Okay. So, uh, so she came in and she told us basically that right after a ruck march, [JT] said to her I’d like to eat your pussy after a ruck march.
SE: Huh.
MP: And then….
SE: That’s totally [JT]
MP: …grabbed her by the neck, bent her over a table and basically dry humped her from behind. Does that ring a bell?
SE: It’s fucking disgusting. Maybe. Not to that detail, no. I can’t put a, I can’t put a thou-, I remember having conversations without [JT] --, about [JT]. I remember the creepiness. I remember that but I don’t remember details like that. I remember that comment, that fucking comment, that I remember that shit, yeah. That.
[436] With this background, I simply cannot rely on Ellis’ evidence about what GG told him other than comments that involved sexual inuendo and smelling her.
[437] I find it hard to believe that Ellis did not remember GG making an allegation of sexual assault against JT. The parties were involved in a relationship and they were living together. Ellis and JT had worked together. At one time, they might have been friends. Yet he had no memory of his partner complaining that she was sexually assaulted by JT.
[438] As with so many other aspects of this case, this disconnect is impossible to reconcile or reason through.
[439] I also wish to be clear that I am not faulting the military police officer who questioned Ellis. His approach signalled a clear intention to not lead Ellis. Only when it became clear that Ellis was not honing in on the nature of GG’s allegations, did the officer lead him. The problem is with Ellis’ memory, not with the officer’s interview technique.
f) The Evidence of KT
[440] Nothing turns on KT’s evidence. The fact that she denied meeting GG at the Petawawa Fair is neither here nor there to the material issues in this case.
Conclusion
[441] I therefore find that I have a reasonable doubt on the evidence which I do accept. I cannot find the evidence of GG is credible and reliable given:
- i) the inconsistency with respect to whether in sexually assaulting her, JT grabbed her by the hair, which was in a bun, or grabbed her by her head and neck, her hair being shaved.
- ii) the irreconcilable disconnect between her evidence and the evidence of Cliché;
- iii) the irreconcilable disconnect between her evidence and the evidence of Von Dungern;
- iv) the irreconcilable disconnect between her evidence and the evidence of Parker;
- v) the lack of reliability of the evidence of Ellis.
[442] Thus, despite the fact that I do not believe JT, nor I am not left in doubt by his evidence, I have a reasonable doubt as to his guilt.
[443] JT is entitled to the benefit of that doubt and he is found not guilty.
Released: April 30, 2025
Signed: Justice J.R. Richardson